AMD admits it overpaid for ATI, will take unspecified charge

Although you may not have been paying close attention to the actual breakdown, $3.2 billion of the staggering $5.6 billion AMD coughed up in order to acquire ATI last year was simply an estimated goodwill value. Unfortunately for the world's number two chip maker, that estimate wasn't exactly accurate. Reportedly, AMD admitted that it did indeed overpay for ATI, and to make matters worse, it noted that it would be forced to "write down the value of the goodwill estimate it attached to ATI" in a recent SEC filing. If you're curious about the exact amount, however, you'll be staying on pins and needles for the time being, as even AMD isn't sure how large the charge will be. Granted, things could certainly be worse, but we'd bet AMD would argue otherwise.

[melvz @ Dec 12th 2007 10:54PM]

hah! they just realized this after a year?!? they really are brilliant!

[Tiptup300 @ Dec 12th 2007 11:45PM]

Well, they were using amd processors to process the value... They take a bit of time.

[Ryan @ Dec 12th 2007 11:01PM]

And that's why they're number two...

[steve @ Dec 12th 2007 11:10PM]

No, they're number two because they don't have anything to compete with intel. That would have been the case whether or not they had acquired ATI. Quit trying to act all wise and knowledgable, it doesn't work very well when you don't actually understand what's going on.

[Ryan @ Dec 12th 2007 11:12PM]

Steve. Joke. C'mon now...

[Ruben @ Dec 12th 2007 11:20PM]

Its also the case that they aquired a company, that currently, doesnt have very much to compete against Nvidia with, either.

We all know its not AMD's fault for ATI's falling (its just coincidence that it happened post takeover), but its a real shame that both ends of AMD have done nothing but disappoint as of late.

As if the ATI disappointments, Barcelona massive f*ck-up and Phenom luke-warm acceptance wasnt enough, AMD also f*cked up by paying too much for ATI.

Like someone else said, Hector has to go. This company needs a new mind to get back on track, and focus on what they are good at. Im really starting to forget what that is.

[Bobs @ Dec 12th 2007 11:01PM]

I just wished that AMD didnt butcher ATI's website, and make it nearly impossible to find drivers, you dont know if your on AMD's site, or ATI's almost all the time.

[cmonkey @ Dec 12th 2007 11:17PM]

It always happens when tech companies merge. The HP-Compaq merger was like 6 years ago and they still haven't got the website thing quite right.

[Bobs @ Dec 13th 2007 1:21AM]

I treat highest ranked posts like little internet trophies

[Bobs @ Dec 13th 2007 1:21AM]

I treat highest ranked posts like little internet trophies

[UKNigel @ Dec 13th 2007 1:35AM]

I treat double posters like little internet turds.


JK. ;)

[Wwhat @ Dec 13th 2007 7:47AM]

They made a special site for it: http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_catalyst.aspx

Seems simple enough, only issue being that their old driver page is up too (http://ati.amd.com/support/drivers/xp/radeonx-xp.html) and that they don't update anymore it seems, genius eh.

[Wwhat @ Dec 13th 2007 7:55AM]

Oh and unlike the old site these you can bookmark, which I consider quite the blessing.

[tweek @ Dec 13th 2007 8:06AM]

I wish they would finally fix their drivers for AGP people, which are still broken, after 3 or 4 months now.

[Bobs @ Dec 13th 2007 9:06AM]

Tweek, im assuming you have the X1650? ive got the same one, and a friend of mine running a simmilar system says that from catlyst 5.5 and up, it lagged, try downloading the newer 5.9 drivers, they work for him. An offical driver set that actually fails to work for %90 of 1650 card owners for over 4 versions is unacceptable.

[Pastry Chef @ Dec 12th 2007 11:10PM]

I think Hector Ruiz has to go.

[Rob @ Dec 12th 2007 11:19PM]

Well, I'd file this in the same cabinet with debacle of AOL buying Time-Warner.

[blinkcowz182 @ Dec 13th 2007 12:28AM]

Parent company of Weblogs Inc, sub-company of some other crap, parent of Engadget.

[Rob @ Dec 13th 2007 7:28AM]

I know. It was still a stupid purchase. Look at what has turned out of AOL.

[sdsdv10 @ Dec 12th 2007 11:24PM]

The ironic thing is, with the current problems with Phenom and Barcelona. The ATI derived 3850 and 3870 graphic cards are probably one of the few things actually making a profit for AMD at the moment (as well as their older Opteron server chips).

[Ruben @ Dec 12th 2007 11:30PM]

I dont think they are making that much profit on it. It was already suposed to come out at a higher price, then got dropped when they saw how it did against the 8800GT, and priced it accordingly.

They no longer have a profit monster card, like Nvidia has with its Ultra and GTX. Flagships are important to pay for research, as well as declare to the public that your cards are capable of the best performance, which sells your mid range cards on its own due to association.

Of course, this is pure speculation, but profit hasnt been the friend of AMD lately. It seems like they are forced to undercut the competition to even be visible, while hurting themselves in the process.

[Zeus the God @ Dec 12th 2007 11:59PM]

Actually, ATI had that price down from the very start because of the low production costs of the cards.

[Jesse S @ Dec 13th 2007 12:29AM]

You know absolutely nothing about AMD then. They make almost ALL of their money in flash memory, as does Intel.

[Wwhat @ Dec 13th 2007 7:50AM]

AMD makes lots of stuff not so into our eye, like chips for consoles and phones and more quaint devices, TV-related and such I think.
I'm not sure where they get most income from.

[Ruben @ Dec 13th 2007 9:17AM]

@Zeus:

You think that AMD prices based on how much it costs them? Well, they do to an extent, but they price based on what the market wants to pay for it. If given the opportunity to price the cards higher, they would, regardless of the fact it is cheaper to manufacturer. I'm sure the GTX isn't breaking Nvidia's bank to get them out the door.

AMD would have kept its X2 series at a much higher price then what they fell to, had it not been for Intel releasing the cost-competitive Core2 series. Had the 2900 been a performance monster, surpassing the GTX, then im sure we would be paying quite a bit more for it.

Jesse:

Thanks for taking things way out of context, but i was only referring to their new video cards, not AMD in general. And is it not a fact that AMD has not been doing well in the profit end: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,2112096,00.htm


Look, I like AMD. I want them to rise again, especially ATI. But they have been disappointing me.

[Johnny5 @ Dec 13th 2007 11:31AM]

@Jesse S-

AMD spun off its flash business 4-5 years ago. Its called spansion.
http://www.spansion.com

[Zeus the God @ Dec 13th 2007 12:01AM]

Its only a matter of time before AMD/ATI get back on their feet, and even you guys trying to insult AMD's processors, you better hope for it, too, because if they don't we're all gonna' get raped.

Intel would have no real reason to try and further processing tech, would start charging shit tons of money for them. Same with Nvidia.

[APPLES @ Dec 13th 2007 12:55AM]

agreed

[Ruben @ Dec 13th 2007 9:22AM]

Intel would not sit on their hands. Intel always has a competitor, and it is itself. Nvidia also has a major competitor, and once again, it is itself.

Intel will always want you to upgrade. They will also attempt to give you a reason as to why you should upgrade, by pushing tech ahead of previous generations. Same with Nvidia. If game makers like Crytek give people a reason to get a new card, then Nvidia has no choice but to make that new card for you to buy.

These companies don't want you to buy one of their products and sit on it. They want that product you bought to be in the trash in a year.

However, i do agree that 2 competitors are always helpful, and AMD is definitely needed to help drive advances even further. But if they are gone, we are not going to hit a wall.

[CosterMonger @ Dec 13th 2007 12:22PM]

@Ruben

WTF?

[Ebu @ Dec 13th 2007 12:30AM]

I always thought nVidia would be a better fit with AMD, since nVidia is competing with intel in the chipset area. So I was shocked when AMD bought ATI.

[Taylor @ Dec 13th 2007 12:31AM]

I use Intel + Nvidia, but I wouldn't call myself a fanboy. It's just that ATI and AMD have yet to do anything... original since their merger.

[ethana2 @ Dec 13th 2007 4:17AM]

open specs

[Anton @ Dec 13th 2007 12:43AM]

nVidia + Intel = FTW!

[Bobs @ Dec 13th 2007 1:22AM]

Crap, sorry for the double post, I thought i missed the post button and I clicked again. Thats what causes double posts.

[ethana2 @ Dec 13th 2007 4:22AM]

Double posts are caused by forum systems that don't allow post edits and removal.

I absolve you.

[patrick @ Dec 13th 2007 1:23AM]

AMD will always be number two, making stupid moves like that

[Kiwi616 @ Dec 13th 2007 1:23AM]

I love SFAS 142....first AOL Time Warner and now AMD/ATI.

[Bobs @ Dec 13th 2007 1:23AM]

nVidia+Intel=bad market
ATI+nVidia+Intel+IBM+AMD=good market

[CosterMonger @ Dec 13th 2007 12:24PM]

VIA? :)

[Bobs @ Dec 13th 2007 7:13PM]

I apologise for my ignorance.
ATI+nVidia+Intel+VIA+Cyrex+IBM+AMD=good market

[Wwhat @ Dec 13th 2007 7:51AM]

Why not? you'd get a lot of cash and would have bought intel shares with it ;)

[Wwhat @ Dec 13th 2007 7:54AM]

If you see this article point out that AMD paid maybe a billion too much (or something) then this is a very odd time to say you would not have sold.

[Maff @ Dec 13th 2007 9:14AM]

IBM needs to bring back the Blue Lightning.

[S @ Dec 13th 2007 1:32PM]

Find the banker who did that goodwill appraisal... And sue the pants off them.

[ScuderiaConchiglia @ Dec 13th 2007 2:25PM]

I wonder if the sudden difference in the value of ATI's goodwill, is because now that goodwill is branded AMD??? Just sayin'...

ScuderiaConchiglia